Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Wonder if that'll filter up to the SCOTUS.


A federal judge Monday afternoon ordered Tennessee to stop enforcing
new rules that restricted “Occupy Nashville” demonstrators’ ability to
protest in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN).

“The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because
it does not like how people are using a public space,” said ACLU-TN
Legal Director Tricia Herzfeld. “Today’s decision is the first step in
restoring demonstrators’ free speech rights.”

The protesters had been camped at Legislative Plaza in downtown
Nashville to protest the economic and political consolidation of power
since October 9.

But on October 27, Tennessee enacted new rules without any public
review process that eliminated their right to gather after 4:00 p.m.
and implemented a 10:00 pm curfew on the plaza. The state also
required protesters to pay use and security fees and to obtain
$1,000,000 in liability insurance coverage prior to engaging in any
assembly activity.

“We have a legitimate complaint that is supported by a majority of the
American people that there is too much corruption in government,” said
one protester, Buck Gorrell, in a statement. “We have a right to
assemble to address those complaints. What more appropriate public
space is there in Tennessee for that purpose than Legislative Plaza?
The state government is imposing arbitrary barriers to our rights
under the Constitution.”

The “Occupy Nashville” protesters defied the new rules, leading to
arrests on Friday and Saturday mornings. The 50 people arrested,
however, were released after Night Court Magistrate Tom Nelson refused
to sign off on the arrest warrants.

The lawsuit (PDF) alleges that state illegally revised the rules
controlling Legislative Plaza by fiat in secret and without notice.
The complaint also claims the state arrested protesters without
probable cause and due process.

Tennessee did not oppose the motion for a temporary restraining order,
which halts enforcement of the rules until a preliminary injunction
hearing scheduled for November 21.

“We hope the fact that the State did not contest the temporary
restraining order means that it is recommitting itself to safeguarding
— not thwarting — public political expression,” said Hedy Weinberg,
ACLU-TN Executive Director.

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?
--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is
the problem.

On 10/31/2011 10:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Wonder if that'll filter up to the SCOTUS.


A federal judge Monday afternoon ordered Tennessee to stop enforcing
new rules that restricted “Occupy Nashville” demonstrators’ ability to
protest in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN).

“The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because
it does not like how people are using a public space,” said ACLU-TN
Legal Director Tricia Herzfeld. “Today’s decision is the first step in
restoring demonstrators’ free speech rights.”

The protesters had been camped at Legislative Plaza in downtown
Nashville to protest the economic and political consolidation of power
since October 9.

But on October 27, Tennessee enacted new rules without any public
review process that eliminated their right to gather after 4:00 p.m.
and implemented a 10:00 pm curfew on the plaza. The state also
required protesters to pay use and security fees and to obtain
$1,000,000 in liability insurance coverage prior to engaging in any
assembly activity.

“We have a legitimate complaint that is supported by a majority of the
American people that there is too much corruption in government,” said
one protester, Buck Gorrell, in a statement. “We have a right to
assemble to address those complaints. What more appropriate public
space is there in Tennessee for that purpose than Legislative Plaza?
The state government is imposing arbitrary barriers to our rights
under the Constitution.”

The “Occupy Nashville” protesters defied the new rules, leading to
arrests on Friday and Saturday mornings. The 50 people arrested,
however, were released after Night Court Magistrate Tom Nelson refused
to sign off on the arrest warrants.

The lawsuit (PDF) alleges that state illegally revised the rules
controlling Legislative Plaza by fiat in secret and without notice.
The complaint also claims the state arrested protesters without
probable cause and due process.

Tennessee did not oppose the motion for a temporary restraining order,
which halts enforcement of the rules until a preliminary injunction
hearing scheduled for November 21.

“We hope the fact that the State did not contest the temporary
restraining order means that it is recommitting itself to safeguarding
— not thwarting — public political expression,” said Hedy Weinberg,
ACLU-TN Executive Director.
He did his job. I totally agree with him. These people did not violate
the Law. His job is judicial safety valve to prevent overzealous
government. I take no position on the issue other than that.
You are not talking about political appointees determined to push their
agenda.
You better than God that you have local Judges and Law Enforcement.
They are you.
All you are saying is that you have a bias studied or not agaains their
protests. Your protests are allowed. So are theirs.

In article ,
says...

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

Who is John Gault.

On 10/31/11 10:43 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

Who is John Gault.

If you had read the book, you'd know it was Galt, not Gault.

On 11/1/11 12:50 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:14:04 -0700, wrote:


Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Wonder if that'll filter up to the SCOTUS.


A federal judge Monday afternoon ordered Tennessee to stop enforcing
new rules that restricted “Occupy Nashville” demonstrators’ ability to
protest in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN).

“The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because
it does not like how people are using a public space,” said ACLU-TN
Legal Director Tricia Herzfeld. “Today’s decision is the first step in
restoring demonstrators’ free speech rights.”

We probably have a better test case going on in Ft Myers. There is a
long standing law against camping in the park and pretty much anywhere
but a designated (zoned) camp ground within the city. You also need a
permit to do much more than visit the park and it closes at night.

It is going to be interesting when they try to make the case that
"camping" is "speech". If the protesters win, the result might be
chilling. It would say that if you have something to gripe about, you
can camp anywhere you want.

It does make me wonder how long these people would last in Lafayette
Park, right outside Obama's front door, in DC.


There are almost always demonstrators and protestors in that area, no
matter who is president. Some of the demonstrators are really wigged
out, though, with signs indicating their displeasure over the Soviet
domination of eastern Europe, even though that's been over for some time.

DC police, for the most part, are pretty tolerant of demonstrators. We
get lots of demonstrations and marches here.

On 11/1/11 1:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:54:24 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 11/1/11 12:50 AM, wrote:

It does make me wonder how long these people would last in Lafayette
Park, right outside Obama's front door, in DC.


There are almost always demonstrators and protestors in that area, no
matter who is president. Some of the demonstrators are really wigged
out, though, with signs indicating their displeasure over the Soviet
domination of eastern Europe, even though that's been over for some time.

DC police, for the most part, are pretty tolerant of demonstrators. We
get lots of demonstrations and marches here.

I went to school on the 1700 block of G street. I know all about the
demonstrators in front of the white house but I guarantee you, if you
pitch a tent and refuse to move, you will be in a wagon. The rule in
front of the white house is you have to keep moving.


It was a lot easier before Bush and 9-11 and Bush's fake war on terrorism.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:15:09 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 10/31/11 10:43 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

Who is John Gault.

If you had read the book, you'd know it was Galt, not Gault.

Supply siders who haven't a ****ing clue from whence they came.

Clueless, low information voter.

On 11/1/11 2:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:15:09 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 10/31/11 10:43 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 31/10/2011 8:14 PM, jps wrote:

Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Maybe, maybe not.

What if productive people withheld income tax from DC in peaceful
protest. What then?

Would fleabaggers support that?

Who is John Gault.

If you had read the book, you'd know it was Galt, not Gault.

Supply siders who haven't a ****ing clue from whence they came.

Clueless, low information voter.


Their motto:

"No need to read the book if
you read the bumpersticker."

Ms. Rand's books were all the rage at the
Susan S. Sheridan Junior High School.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:14:04 -0700, jps wrote:


Looks like some judges may still be interested in protecting people's
constitutional rights...

Wonder if that'll filter up to the SCOTUS.


A federal judge Monday afternoon ordered Tennessee to stop enforcing
new rules that restricted “Occupy Nashville” demonstrators’ ability to
protest in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN).

“The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because
it does not like how people are using a public space,” said ACLU-TN
Legal Director Tricia Herzfeld. “Today’s decision is the first step in
restoring demonstrators’ free speech rights.”

The protesters had been camped at Legislative Plaza in downtown
Nashville to protest the economic and political consolidation of power
since October 9.

But on October 27, Tennessee enacted new rules without any public
review process that eliminated their right to gather after 4:00 p.m.
and implemented a 10:00 pm curfew on the plaza. The state also
required protesters to pay use and security fees and to obtain
$1,000,000 in liability insurance coverage prior to engaging in any
assembly activity.

Those rules make damn good sense.

Shouldn't be any bitchin' about 'em either!